"...as far as what we say to people who don’t ... I’m not
really interested in designing campaigns – I mean look, Erik, there are going to be people
who disagree, they’re going to be people who aren’t interested at all. So shall I design
my campaign and shall I target my efforts to the people that don’t care?

You know, last night I saw this movie Amazing Grace, it wasn’t a perfect movie, but it
was certainly, given the grand scheme of horrible movies these days, it was a worthwhile
movie to see. It was about Wilbur Wilberforce, who actually with Richard Martin, I
think this is accurate, that he started the RSPCA in England, but William Wilberforce
was also an abolitionist with respect to slavery. And it was very interesting, because he
had to confront this very issue. That, at the time that he decided slavery should be
abolished most people thought slavery shouldn’t be abolished, and yet, he didn’t propose
that we ought to make slavery more humane. He took an abolitionist position
continuously, and eventually he prevailed. So I’m not really interested in worrying
about – yeah, are there some people out there that don’t care?
You used the expression “gratuitous cruelty” I don’t even know what the hell that means,
Erik. I really don’t even know what that means, gratuitous cruelty. What does that
mean? We don’t need to eat animals at all. Nobody maintains – its 2007, nobody, not
even the United States government maintains that we need to eat any animal products to
be optimally healthy. Indeed an increasing number of mainstream healthcare people are
telling us that eating animal products isn’t good for us. So, all suffering in connection
with animals that we’re raising for food is gratuitous. So I don’t know what you mean
when you say gratuitous cruelty.
But, are there people who don’t care? Yes, Erik, there are people who don’t care, and
there are a lot of people who do care. And what I’m interested in doing is reaching those
people, and when I reach them, the last thing in the world I want to tell them is, “Hey
look, you’re going to go from Abu Ghraib to a minimum security Connecticut prison if
you buy cage-free eggs.” I’m not going to tell them that. I’m going to tell them if they
care about this issue there’s one choice: go vegan. And you know what? Some people
are going to turn off to that, and some people are going to turn on to that, and what I’m
interested in is the people who turn on to it, because every person I turn on to it decreases
demand. That’s what we’ve got to do, is decrease the demand. And the way you
decrease demand is you get people to stop using these products altogether. You don’t do
it by imposing opportunity costs that are so deminimist that producers can pass those
costs along to consumers and not lose a cent of profit. Indeed, there is a huge markup. I
don’t know if you’ve shopped at Whole Foods recently, but they’re making a lot of
money. Those products are marked up tremendously. Those producers are making a
tremendous profit. I don’t think that’s the solution. As a matter of fact, I’m sure it’s not."Here is my Facebook status I read out: https://www.facebook.com/NZVegan/posts/541388332629761"Listening to the second part of the debate between Gary Francione and Tim Barford. So far we are at just the first question, re: having groups like "Part-Time Carnivore" attend Veg Fest. Tim is justifying this by saying cutting down to say 20% animal products is still going to have an immensely positive effect on the environment and human health, as well as decreasing by 80% the amount of animals used.Nobody is disputing that less harm is better. Nobody is disputing that or has ever disputed that. It is not an issue that is focused on in human rights campaigning against fundamental human rights abuses like rape (I mean, less rape is better right? So should we campaign for 'less rape'? NO!!! We should and do campaign for NO RAPE!)

The main theme of Tim's position and of every single other welfarist I have debated myself in various places, is the same one. Their position is: if you advocate for veganism unequivocally, not only will people not even begin to think about these issues at all, and therefore because they won't even begin to think about them that means they will therefore never start to examine their animal use, leading them to start to cut down on their animal use anyway, of their own volition, based on these issues they are beginning to think about because they were talked to about veganism - not only will they not do that, but that they will completely and utterly, down to the last person, freak out, reject the entire thing entirely, and will make NO reductions and might even increase animal use out of some kind of perverse notion and will never, ever go vegan, or ever cut down, or ever have their consciousness awoken in the slightest bit about the immorality of animal use.

This is their claim. Based on this erroneous belief, they claim we *have* to promote "meat free Mondays" or "part time Carnivore" or welfare 'reforms' or 'cutting down' etc and we cannot promote veganism unequivocally or hold veganism as the moral baseline. Otherwise, they claim, NO ONE will make ANY CHANGES. EVER. That's their position.Does that make sense to you? That doesn't make sense to me either."Thanks for listening

Friday, July 25, 2014

It has died down now so I wasn't as time consuming as I thought. Good! Because I plan to do this more often as it needs to be done, as a lot of new vegans get sucked into welfare which is a terrible thing to happen. We need to expose new vegans to abolition as quickly as possible - if only at the very least to give them the option to see the alternative. Rather than them not even knowing it exists, or them only being exposed to the deliberate distortions of abolition by the welfarist movement.

Here is the link to the articles on the modern feminist movement that I mentioned, I especially learned a lot from the second article, especially the similarities and conflicts within the feminist movement that mirror a lot of the welfarist/abolitionist debate.

I especially LOVE this comment by one of the commentators on the article whose moniker is "MLM":

"I think part of the problem, and part of what makes certain radical thinkers so easy to demonise, is that the very notion of compassion itself has also been hijacked and distorted. People think compassion is about protecting somebody’s feelings, and sometimes it is. But sometimes it’s having an understanding that there are more crucial issues at stake. And doing the right thing may actually hurt someone’s feelings, and not make you or them feel good. Sometimes the deepest compassion is the type that requires you to be the sword which cuts through the bullshit and say “No, Im sorry. I can’t and won’t go along with that. It’s not good for me or you or anyone”. (I’m learning this more and more as a parent…)

Going along with falsehood and delusion just because you are afraid of hurting someone’s feelings or because you feel sorry for them is not compassion, it’s a type of sycophancy. And while it’s so important not to lose sight of the fact that you are dealing with another human being when you find yourself in opposition with them, it’s every bit as important to point out that facilitating injustice in the name of “compassion” is actually precisely the opposite. Fierce defence of justice is actually the truest kind of compassion, but often also the easiest to mischaracterize."

Sunday, March 2, 2014

This is the quote from Gary Francione I mentioned:"To believe in a principle of justice and promote that principle clearly is not be "angry." That term is simply a way of putting the principle down by not focusing on the substance and, instead, focusing on the person articulating the principle.

People always "like" people who don't challenge them but in the world in which you and I live, challenging others is what morality *requires*. It's not optional!"

(In response to a comment on the Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights page in which the commentator said: "I was overwhelmed by all the "angry vegan" personal attacks this week and wanted to be seen as 'nicer' by encouraging this, which did not prove to be effective and went against my conscience anyway.")

"*All* animal products involve suffering and death. All of them. We should be crystal clear that the *only* rational response to recognizing the moral status of nonhumans is to go vegan. If animals matter morally, then *any* exploitation--however supposedly "humane"--is immoral. To say that being "compassionate" requires that we promote something other than veganism is to say that we are morally obligated to promote immorality. That makes no sense, If you agree that animals matter, veganism--and only veganism--is what makes sense."